Email this article to a friend

Everything old is new again

This column was originally published on Jeff Neal's blog, ChiefHRO.com, and was republished here with permission
from the author.

Fifteen years ago, the Department of Commerce proposed
abolishing the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS), an agency that serves as a repository for
government-funded scientific, technical, engineering and business-related
information and provides a variety of services to other federal agencies. In 1999,
their view was that NTIS had outlived its usefulness. Much of the material they
cataloged and sold was becoming available on the Internet, and they believed the
agencies whose material NTIS houses could simply maintain their own material.

Jeff Neal

I was the deputy director of Human Resources for Commerce at the time, so I became
very involved in the discussion. Like several other senior executives and
political appointees in the department, I believed there was still value in the
services NTIS offers. While it was true that much of what they sell was available
online, much of it was not. There are also a lot of people who want to consume
information in printed form. Given a choice of online and free or printed for a
fee, they will go with printed.

After much internal debate, discussion and
arguing, the department agreed that NTIS would be downsized, but would remain in
place. The decision was based in part on the idea that the government invests a
tremendous amount of money in producing information and cannot rely on countless
websites, government and non-government, to maintain the information.

Much of
what is maintained online is driven by traffic. If it gets enough hits, it stays
up. If not, it may be deleted. The NTIS decision was based on sound logic,
resulted in savings for the taxpayers, and ensured the wealth of information they
maintained would be available to the people (you) who paid for it.

Fast forward 15
years. There is a Senate bill called the "Let Me Google That For You Act" that
proposes abolishing NTIS for the same reasons stated 15 years ago. I have to give
the bill's sponsors credit for a catchy name for the bill, but
beyond that I think there is more to consider than just how the Internet has
changed the storage and retrieval of information.

The bill references a 2012 GAO report that said 74 percent of the
information
NTIS sells is available free on agency websites and in other locations. That means
a quarter of such information is not available and it says nothing about how long
the information will be on those websites.

NTIS is not the only agency that sells printed versions of documents that are
available free from various sites on the Internet. The Legislative Branch
Government Printing Office sells print copies of many documents, including budget
reports and others, that are freely available as electronic versions. The simple
fact is some people want or need print editions. As much as many of us have
embraced technology, some people have not or cannot.

"Free" isn't free. Information on agency websites has a cost. They pay for
hosting, security, programming, site design, maintenance and other operating
costs. Because the money is not charged directly to consumers of the information,
we think of it as free when it is not.

NTIS operates using a revolving fund rather than appropriated money. Because
it has to earn its keep, they sell products and services (full disclosure —
my
employer ICF International is an NTIS Joint Venture Partner). Agencies such as
NTIS that operate using revolving funds have to function much more like
businesses. They identify products and services they can sell, determine how they
can add value to customers, market their services, and add or subtract staff based
on revenues. If they fail to bring in adequate revenue, they suffer the
consequences, much like anyone in the private sector. Thus, the market can and
does decide whether NTIS should exist.

My views on NTIS have not changed since I was involved with them 15 years ago. I
am concerned that much of the information available from NTIS will cease to be
available if NTIS is abolished and a well-established service provider will go
away.

If there is going to be a public policy discussion regarding the mission and
existence of NTIS, my recommendation is that it be expanded into a comprehensive
look at how the government maintains and provides access to the vast amounts of
information it pays for. Findings resulting from government grants for scientific
research, technical data, reports from government agencies, and countless other
types of data are produced every day. Taxpayers should have access to the
information their tax dollars support. Relying on commercial search engines such
as Google, Yahoo and Bing to find the information and hoping agencies will
maintain it on their websites for years doesn't seem to be the best public
policy.

We would be better off if one or more agencies are charged with maintaining and
making that information available. The funding mechanism should be part of that
debate. Some would argue it should be funded with appropriated money, while others
would argue it should be funded by the people and organizations that consume the
information. Both ideas have merit.

The issues the sponsors of this bill have raised are valid topics for a public
policy discussion. Let's have that discussion on a broad basis rather than
focusing on one small agency. The result could be substantially more access to
information at a reasonable cost.

Copyright 2013 by Jeff Neal. All rights reserved.

Jeff Neal is founder of the blog, ChiefHRO.com, and a senior vice president for ICF
International, where he leads the Organizational Research, Learning and
Performance practice. Before coming to ICF, Neal was the chief human capital
officer at the Department of Homeland Security and the chief human resources
officer at the Defense Logistics Agency.